Anti-religion internet memes

[Kittamaru]

The OT contained the call to kill the "Sunday" worker and I dont see where that was "repealed".
Same with slavery as I understand.
It seems that Christians try to distance themselves from the OT which seems strange given JC rubber stamped it.

I guess the idea with reading the good book is to select only the stuff that supports ones notion of religion.

To be frank, I'm too tired to give a long winded explanation, so I'll let it suffice to say that a lot was covered when Christ said Tetelestai.

So when presented with say not eating shellfish one can say "oh thats so OT JC came down to die for us so we can now eat shell fish"

As I understand the plot God came down as JC and whilst noting that the old laws have not changed he has made his own sacrifice to himself for humanity 99.9 % of who never knew what was going on or why the whole deal was confined to a small part of the world no one would have been aware of.

I guess faith means that irrespective of the flaws one can read past all those problems to arrive at a nice way to view the world.

And that is nice but possibly has little to do with fact...even the facts laid out in the book of authority referred to as the word of God seem to be ignored or accepted with little concern about the selection process.

Any book that contains errors or mistakes perhaps is not the word of God but an accumulation of camp fire stories thrown together with exceptionally poor editing or review such that it is clear that stories such as the mythical big flood is clearly written by two authors who never witnessed the event or took time to review the nonsensical logistics required which rendered the story clear fiction.

And yet there are folk who believe this fairy tale simply because it is in their good book.

And happily accept that the god they worship casually, if the story is to be believed, killed every human except a few because he was ticked off they had been bad.

It isn't about cherry picking bits and pieces, so much as it is remembering that these are the words written by Man from that time; times change, but the Commandments, the final laws, make just as much sense today as they did then.

Religion is no more than make believe for grown ups set in lies and superstition.

And really if you believe the NT stuff just remember that JC promised those assembled that he would return in their lifetimes and he did not honor that promise.

In the real world if someone, from politician to child, does not honor their promise they are regarded as unreliable and unworthy of trust....where does that leave JC?

Alex

To that I say I am sorry you feel that way... and would challenge you to prove your statement that Christ has not, in fact, returned. It is an interesting thought experiment.

I am concerned that you would abandon your trust in a child simply because they did not keep a singular promise - after all, they are but a child, and should be taught rather than simply cast aside for such a mistake.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

, the final laws, make just as much sense today as they did then.

Thank you for your reply.
I find great difficulty it accepting laws that tell you to kill another human because they fail to follow the sabath thing.
And I dont think if we were to go through the various laws one by one you could support many of them.

. and would challenge you to prove your statement that Christ has not, in fact, returned.

Well I think the burden of proof could reasonably be shifted to the person suggesting JC has returned.

It probably would be world wide news ...maybe I missed it☺

I am concerned that you would abandon your trust in a child simply because they did not keep a singular promise

We are not talking aboit trust in a child for a start.

We are talking about, as you view it, an unfulfilled promise made by God himself.

Anyways I am happy that you can take something that should be thrown out and make use of it by recycling it and ignoring the problems and find it fits the way you want to view reality.

You have a nice day and thank you for being direct in your answers.

I find such an approach most refreshing.

Alex

 

[iceaura]

My apologies, I'm only tangentially following the thread - what was the original question?

Post 87 precis.

An aspect of the topic "anti-religion internet memes".
There are a few, and some do harm imho.

 

[Kittamaru]

Post 87 precis.

An aspect of the topic "anti-religion internet memes".
There are a few, and some do harm imho.

That looks to be a response to SIASL's comment claiming "Love Thy Neighbor" only applied to those of their own people - referring specifically to Mark 12:31 - "The second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' No other commandment is greater than these."

Add in John 13:34-35 - "So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples."

I'm not sure where the idea that this only applied to other Christians, or others of their own country/colour/et al arrived, but the generally accepted meaning was for us to love everyone regardless of race, colour, religion, etc... even those that wrong us and commit crimes should be loved, though that does not absolve them of the laws of their government(s).

 

[Kittamaru]

Thank you for your reply.
I find great difficulty it accepting laws that tell you to kill another human because they fail to follow the sabath thing.

May I ask - what of the Ten Commandments tells you to kill someone who does not follow the sabbath?

And I dont think if we were to go through the various laws one by one you could support many of them.

Well I think the burden of proof could reasonably be shifted to the person suggesting JC has returned.

Ah, except I am not suggesting he has - I am merely asking you to prove that he hasn't. Sure, I cannot prove God exists, but neither can you prove he does not and, as we know, lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.

It probably would be world wide news ...maybe I missed it☺

Actually. in all honesty, with how badly things have been misremembered and whitewashed, Christ would likely be put into a straight jacket were he to return. A lot of people imagine Jesus to be white... I mean, he was born in what today would be the Middle East - he would most likely have more physical resemblance to Osama Bin Laden than Ted Neely.

We are not talking aboit trust in a child for a start.

We are talking about, as you view it, an unfulfilled promise made by God himself.

So... one standard for one, and a different for another, then?

Anyways I am happy that you can take something that should be thrown out and make use of it by recycling it and ignoring the problems and find it fits the way you want to view reality.

Quite a backhanded comment there haha.

You have a nice day and thank you for being direct in your answers.

I find such an approach most refreshing.

Alex

As one who was raised in a church, lost his faith, and spent several years figuring out just what he believed... yeah, I prefer the direct approach haha.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

May I ask - what of the Ten Commandments tells you to kill someone who does not follow the sabbath?

I did not say it was there but it is somewhere isnt it?
Or did I dream it up?

Ah, except I am not suggesting he has - I am merely asking you to prove that he hasn't.

Give me some time and I will see what the rest of the population says...I expect we would get a list of folk who would believe he has...
I think the proof you ask for would be difficult ... you dont know something that I dont ..like he will be back next week and you are setting me up☺

God exists, but neither can you prove he does not and, as we know, lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.

Certainly lack of evidence etc etc ... The lack of evidence is however of some concern.
If the relationship exists I certainly would expect more...maybe for you you have more evidence than you need.
I wonder if anyone will ever really know.

Actually. in all honesty, with how badly things have been misremembered and whitewashed, Christ would likely be put into a straight jacket were he to return.

If he is all that he is claimed to be I expect he already knows...I thought that was part of the deal...he knows all or God knows all and each are the other ... how could he not know what to expect...I cant imagine him turning up and its all news to him.

A lot of people imagine Jesus to be white

Who does?
What are their names?
Like most things we can only guess what he looked like...was he real?
Well I expect you would think he was...was he who he claimed to be? I expect you wpuld think he was...say he had some terrible scar ...would we be told or would they not have mentioned his scar.

. I mean, he was born in what today would be the Middle East - he would most likely have more physical resemblance to Osama Bin Laden than Ted Neely.

Who knows?
Are there any statues or paintings from his time...head on a coin sortta stuff.

So... one standard for one, and a different for another, then?

Absolutely.
A child can not be guilty of a crime ...clearly law makers recognise there is a difference...
And why wouldnt you.

Quite a backhanded comment there haha.

I appologise it was not met to be a backhander but I can see how you could take it that way.
I was trying to rationalise how one could sift through it all and take away something positive really.

I like many approaches suggested in religion and if I thought I could plead "its in the bible" there could be a few neighbours starting their mowers too early in for a shock ☺
I do like peace and supporting positive emotions but thats all I need, thanks keep the rest.

As one who was raised in a church, lost his faith, and spent several years figuring out just what he believed... yeah, I prefer the direct approach ha ha

Well all good then.

Alex

 

[Kittamaru]

I did not say it was there but it is somewhere isnt it?
Or did I dream it up?

I do not believe that the New Testament condones killing - it does, however, state that one must also follow the laws of their government:

Give me some time and I will see what the rest of the population says...I expect we would get a list of folk who would believe he has...
I think the proof you ask for would be difficult ... you dont know something that I dont ..like he will be back next week and you are setting me up☺

Ultimately, though, that is irrelevant isn't it - that's what makes the argument so difficult to make.

Certainly lack of evidence etc etc ... The lack of evidence is however of some concern.
If the relationship exists I certainly would expect more...maybe for you you have more evidence than you need.
I wonder if anyone will ever really know.

There is, actually, a fair bit of evidence. The fact that (I believe) every major religion has a "Great Flood" story, for example. The fact that they have found bits and pieces of archaeological evidence that corresponds with what is written in the Bible.

If he is all that he is claimed to be I expect he already knows...I thought that was part of the deal...he knows all or God knows all and each are the other ... how could he not know what to expect...I cant imagine him turning up and its all news to him.

Oh, I'm not saying He wouldn't know it was going to happen. Just, that's where Humanity is right now.

Who does?
What are their names?

Surely you are just being pedantic with this question? Have you ever looked upon a depiction of Christ painted on a window at a Church or Cathedral? Or, perhaps, seen a movie where he is depicted? Or even a simple Google search?

Like most things we can only guess what he looked like...was he real?
Well I expect you would think he was...was he who he claimed to be? I expect you wpuld think he was...say he had some terrible scar ...would we be told or would they not have mentioned his scar.

Who knows?
Are there any statues or paintings from his time...head on a coin sortta stuff.

Who knows? Archeologists, scholars, anyone who bothers to read, for example, would know.

Absolutely.
A child can not be guilty of a crime ...clearly law makers recognise there is a difference...

Actually, in certain instances, children can (and have) been found, and held, guilty of crimes.
As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slender_Man_stabbing

And why wouldnt you.

I don't know - you used the example:

In the real world if someone, from politician to child, does not honor their promise they are regarded as unreliable and unworthy of trust....where does that leave JC?

Alex

What did you mean here, then?

I appologise it was not met to be a backhander but I can see how you could take it that way.
I was trying to rationalise how one could sift through it all and take away something positive really.

As you wish.

I like many approaches suggested in religion and if I thought I could plead "its in the bible" there could be a few neighbours starting their mowers too early in for a shock ☺
I do like peace and supporting positive emotions but thats all I need, thanks keep the rest.

Here is an interesting thought experiment for you:

If there is no God, then by what standard is Moral behavior to be judged, and what reason do we have to be Moral; if all there is is this life, and we die and that's it... what compelling reason is there for someone to strive for a greater good than simple personal self-gratification, short of presuming humans to be naturally self-giving (which history shows quite clearly they are not)?

 

[Tiassa]

Well I think the burden of proof could reasonably be shifted to the person suggesting JC has returned.

It probably would be world wide news ...maybe I missed it☺

Like a thief in the night. Are we certain we would miss 144,000 people? Even more so as some significant portion of them would already be dead.

Comparatively, that's the problem with arbitrary selection of standards; at this point, it doesn't matter what I think of that variation on strict literalism because I can just as easily choose the arbitrary response that you wouldn't necessarily know if you were already caught up in the Matrix.

• • •​

If there is no God, then by what standard is Moral behavior to be judged, and what reason do we have to be Moral …?

I am very interested in the answers; this has always been a confounding question around here.

 

[Kittamaru]

I am very interested in the answers; this has always been a confounding question around here.

It is one I've spent time contemplating, and one that I did not arrive to a satisfactory answer on. Sure, we can hold ourselves to the standards of Mankind... but yikes, that's setting the bar rather low, isn't it...

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I do not believe that the New Testament condones killing -

As I understand it ... the OT is seen as replaced by the NT and those finding fault suggest that JC said that was not the case, and, in their call he said he endorsed the OT.
I know there is more to it but hopefully you understand how someone like me for example would focus upon that ... I have said it before but honestly it could do with a tidy up, the good book, ...edit it and make it consistent perhaps...
I just get drawn to things that need fixing.

There is, actually, a fair bit of evidence. The fact that (I believe) every major religion has a "Great Flood" story, for example. The fact that they have found bits and pieces of archaeological evidence that corresponds with what is written in the Bible.

Now thats good.
I may question and even reject your evidence but it is your evidence and I can respect that.
Most humans lived on flood plains and still do ... we had a big flood in 74 where the church steeple went under..I didnt see it but my mate said his sister works with someone who saw it...
My point is flood stories are going to be common because floods are common and big floods are memorable...I can tell you many of my great flood experiences...
Anyways your evidence.
Thats more than I have ever got from Jan.
Thats all I wanted to hear frim someone a few words that paints the picture as they see it.

Actually, in certain instances, children can (and have) been found, and held, guilty of crimes.

Without getting out a book I dont have anymore I think it goes this way...children eight and younger are incapable of crime as they can not form the necessary intent.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If there is no God, then by what standard is Moral behavior to be judged, and what reason do we have to be Moral; if all there is is this life, and we die and that's it... what compelling reason is there for someone to strive for a greater good than simple personal self-gratification, short of presuming humans to be naturally self-giving (which history shows quite clearly they are not)?

If you are really interested in an answer see if you can find Matt Delahunty on utube he has a good answer.

I do think humans are capable of gaining a decent moral code independant of religion and I would think that could be demonstrated and that we could point to folk who have done it an other way sucessfully.

I suppose what may be the reality is there are folk out there who may go crazy morals wise if not for their belief that hell is always only a bad decision away.

But bad deeds produce bad things which in itself is good motivatiin to do the right thing.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Like a thief in the night. Are we certain we would miss 144,000 people? Even more so as some significant portion of them would already be dead.

Sorry you have lost me.
Alex

 

[Kittamaru]

As I understand it ... the OT is seen as replaced by the NT and those finding fault suggest that JC said that was not the case, and, in their call he said he endorsed the OT.
I know there is more to it but hopefully you understand how someone like me for example would focus upon that ... I have said it before but honestly it could do with a tidy up, the good book, ...edit it and make it consistent perhaps...
I just get drawn to things that need fixing.

I'm not sure where/why some say that Christ claims the New Covenant doesn't supersede the Old (well, aside from those who don't believe Christ was the Son of God) but, from a theological perspective, it does.

As for editing et al - it's been done dozens or more times. That's part of the problem - for a long time, the Holy Bible was only able to be read and translated by the Church, and there is plenty of evidence for times where the Church used its power to influence politics, society as a whole, etc. I find it hard to believe that nothing was added and/or changed for the furthering of the political agenda of the time.

Now thats good.
I may question and even reject your evidence but it is your evidence and I can respect that.

Fair enough

Most humans lived on flood plains and still do ... we had a big flood in 74 where the church steeple went under..I didnt see it but my mate said his sister works with someone who saw it...
My point is flood stories are going to be common because floods are common and big floods are memorable...I can tell you many of my great flood experiences...
Anyways your evidence.
Thats more than I have ever got from Jan.
Thats all I wanted to hear frim someone a few words that paints the picture as they see it.

Certainly, and a "world ending flood" to a civilization that spans a few hundred miles isn't all that impressive. That said:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/e...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path.

Fascinated by the idea, Ballard and his team decided to investigate.

"We went in there to look for the flood," he said. "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under."

Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred.

"It probably was a bad day," Ballard said. "At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under."

An interesting find, for sure.
Further reading - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

Without getting out a book I dont have anymore I think it goes this way...children eight and younger are incapable of crime as they can not form the necessary intent.
Alex

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-you...e-of-criminal-responsibility-around-the-world

In 1993, CCTV images of a two-year-old boy being taken by the hand and led away from a UK shopping centre by two older children shocked the world.

It was the last recorded sighting of James Bulger. He was forced to walk four kilometres before the pair beat him to death and left his body on a railway line.

But what was to become of the perpetrators, who were both 10 years old?


At the time, children aged as young as 10 could be held responsible for a crime in England so the two boys stood trial in an adult court. The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (known as MACR) hasn’t changed in England or Wales since.

They were sentenced to eight years – the maximum for a juvenile receiving life imprisonment – and became the youngest convicted murderers in modern British history.

Not much older than 8... but yeah. Things like this, while rare, are harrowing. What would drive a pair of ten year olds to abduct a 2 year old, then beat him to death?

In the US

United States: 6-10
The United States has some of the most varied laws around charging and detaining children.

Thirty-five states in the US don’t have a MACR, while the rest range from 6 to 10 years of age, according to a report by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, cited by The Economist in 2017.

Children aged between 10 and 14 years old can be prosecuted if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they understood what they were doing was wrong.

Between 6 and 10, depending on the state you are in.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

 

[Tiassa]

I'm not sure where/why some say that Christ claims the New Covenant doesn't supersede the Old (well, aside from those who don't believe Christ was the Son of God) but, from a theological perspective, it does.

From the Sermon on the Mount:

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

(Matthew 5.17-20, RSV↱)​

Christians occasionally find cause to dispute the particular meaning among themselves, but generally speaking these verses are not obscure.
____________________

Notes:

Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 19 September 2018. http://bit.ly/2rJddky

 

[Kittamaru]

From the Sermon on the Mount:

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

(Matthew 5.17-20, RSV↱)​

Christians occasionally find cause to dispute the particular meaning among themselves, but generally speaking these verses are not obscure.
____________________

Notes:

Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 19 September 2018. http://bit.ly/2rJddky

Fair enough, though (and perhaps I am misunderstanding - I am not a biblical scholar by any means) I always understood that to mean that he was completing the law; this would mesh with his final words on the cross, tetelesai, or "It is finished".

https://www.gotquestions.org/it-is-finished.html

Just prior to His arrest by the Romans, Jesus prayed His last public prayer, asking the Father to glorify Him, just as Jesus had glorified the Father on earth, having “finished the work you have given me to do” (John 17:4). The work Jesus was sent to do was to “seek and save that which is lost” (Luke 19:10), to provide atonement for the sins of all who would ever believe in Him (Romans 3:23-25), and to reconcile sinful men to a holy God. “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18-19). None other but God in the flesh could accomplish such a task.

Also completed was the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecies, symbols, and foreshadowings of the coming Messiah. From Genesis to Malachi, there are over 300 specific prophecies detailing the coming of the Anointed One, all fulfilled by Jesus. From the “seed” who would crush the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15), to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, to the prediction of the “messenger” of the Lord (John the Baptist) who would “prepare the way” for the Messiah, all prophecies of Jesus’ life, ministry, and death were fulfilled and finished at the cross.

The difference being that abolishing would imply that they were rendered moot; instead, He completed the old laws, and the new Covenant in Christ was purchased with His blood.

The particular version of the bible seems to muddy the meaning further;

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/485-did-christ-abolish-the-law-of-moses

In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called, “The Sermon on the Mount,” these words of Jesus are recorded:

“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).

As the article explains, the word kataluo is translated literally as "loose down". In essence, Christ is saying here is came not to invalidate the old law, but to complete its purpose:

The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an adversary of the law. His goal was not to frustrate its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Lk. 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience or else imposed a “curse” (see Gal. 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

and

(5) In addition to the points listed above, Paul clearly argues, in his letter to the Ephesians, that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” by the death of Jesus upon the cross (2:14-15). The Greek term for “abolished” is katargeo, literally suggesting the idea of reducing something to a state of inactivity.

Paul uses this term twice in Romans 7:2,6 — showing that just as a wife is “discharged” from the law of her husband when he dies, even so, through the death of the body of Christ, men were “discharged” from the obligations of the Mosaic law. That the law here contemplated is the law of Moses, including the ten commandments, is demonstrated by the reference to the tenth commandment in Romans 7:7 (cf. Ex. 20:17).

The harmony between Matthew 5:17-18, and Ephesians 2:15, is this: The purpose of the law of Moses was never to come to naught; its original design would be perpetual. On the other hand, as a legal code, it would be abolished, being cancelled by the Savior’s sacrificial death (cf. Col. 2:14ff.).

And so, a consideration of all the facts leads only to the conclusion that Matthew 5:17 does not afford any support to those who maintain that the observance of the sabbath day is a divinely-required obligation for this age.

This part from the Sermon on the Mount would seem to mean, then, that Christ's purpose was to enact the resolution of the Old Laws, and to bear their completion upon himself - that completion being death, as Mankind was incapable of obeying the laws in their totality.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-christ-fulfilled-and-ended-the-old-testament-regime

3. Jesus came to fulfill all that was written in the Law and the Prophets. All of it was pointing to him, even where it is not explicitly prophetic. He accomplishes what the Law required.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17–18)

4. All the promises of God in the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That is, when you have Christ, sooner or later you will have both Christ himself and all else that God promised through Christ.

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. (2 Corinthians 1:20)
​

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'm not sure where/why some say that Christ claims the New Covenant doesn't supersede the Old

They probably say it because he said it ...
Try the sermon on the mount...the sermon that to a large degree sums up christianity.

Of course I expect the period of time from the sermon to it being recorded in writing would have been many many years so really who knows exactly what was preached on the day.

Lets say that JC in fact said whatever we would like him to have said...it is after al heresay...so lets say JC rejected the OT and its immoral laws...yes that would be best...

I guess the real problem with any of the JC story is it seems to have been a story told and retold for many years before it was written down so you could expect various details would have changed such that one could wonder if the story is credible.

Folk seem to think there are no problems with heresay when it comes to establishing facts for their religion but fortunately reject heresay in the court room where more effort is applied to investigation of the claims of witnesses.

The bible although an interesting piece of litrature contains enough mistakes really to render it undependable in any application.
Sure some of it could be correct but how do you know which parts.

And then we have folk such as your good self who really should know what their God is supposed to have said in his most important sermon who ignore his words to construct an appology for half their good book because they want to distance themselves , understandably, from the crazy crazy stuff like acceptable slave ownership and killing folk because they , in the original example, gathered sticks for a fire on the sabath.
So it seems you must accept that the OT is as much a part of your faith as is the NT...will you stop eating shellfish now? Will you now listern to the call to kill your neighbour if he mows his grass on whatever day of rest you interprete to indeed be the day of rest...

Consider this....

Say you are a communist.
You see the virtue in more equitable distribution of resources and motivated by wishing to do good for the community.

You see communism as a good thing.

But it is pointed out to you that certain goods are in short supply because the government forgot to plan and order them and you find that now you cant drive your car because no tires got made in the last five year plan.

Do you sit at home saying what a great system you belong to or do you admit the system has a fundamental flaw.

Now say along with stuffing up the tire supply you find the original manifesto lists rules pertaining to slave ownership, that you can beat your slave so long as he does not die soon thereafter, ...and lists a call to kill folk who work on a certain day, and that if your child is unruley have him stoned, and a general tone that has women treated as property and gross errors about the physical world its creation and destruction (stars can not fall on the ground as set forth in prediction of the end)...

Would you say "oh communism is such a good thing and I want to belong"

You can not be a christian and ignore the OT and if you accept the OT ...as you must...then all you stand for you dont stand for that ar all.

Alex

 

[iceaura]

It is one I've spent time contemplating, and one that I did not arrive to a satisfactory answer on. Sure, we can hold ourselves to the standards of Mankind... but yikes, that's setting the bar rather low, isn't it...

Holding the various people of Mankind to the standards professed by themselves, and those standards to reason, would hardly be a low bar.

And that is one of the benefits of adopting the more humble approach of liberal reason - instead of adding to the long list moral Five Year Plans and doing unto others, we could recognize existing moral order and set about holding people to it by reason.
The standard of "do not do wrong in your own eyes", which reason imposes, is currently a higher bar than we have cleared - but it seems to be within at least provisional reach.

 

[Michael 345]

I did not say it was there but it is somewhere isnt it?
Or did I dream it up?

30 seconds Google

Kill those who work on the Sabbath

Exodus 35:1-3 Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day."

http://literalbible.blogspot.com/2007/04/kill-those-who-work-on-sabbath.html?m=1

 

[Kittamaru]

They probably say it because he said it ...
Try the sermon on the mount...the sermon that to a large degree sums up christianity.

Which Tiassa also brought up, and I addressed above in post 114

Of course I expect the period of time from the sermon to it being recorded in writing would have been many many years so really who knows exactly what was preached on the day.

Lets say that JC in fact said whatever we would like him to have said...it is after al heresay...so lets say JC rejected the OT and its immoral laws...yes that would be best...

I guess the real problem with any of the JC story is it seems to have been a story told and retold for many years before it was written down so you could expect various details would have changed such that one could wonder if the story is credible.

Folk seem to think there are no problems with heresay when it comes to establishing facts for their religion but fortunately reject heresay in the court room where more effort is applied to investigation of the claims of witnesses.

The bible although an interesting piece of litrature contains enough mistakes really to render it undependable in any application.
Sure some of it could be correct but how do you know which parts.

In all honesty, though, it is somewhat amazing just how cohesive and coherent a book the Bible is given how many individuals accounts are in it and the length of time over which it has been told by mouth and then translated and transcribed.

My takeaway from it, and one that I've discussed with our Pastors and they agree, is that the Bible isn't something that can be taken super literally, in large part due to the amount of time that has passed. The culture, the people, the technology, indeed the very norms that formed the basis for many laws are either vastly different or entirely new; to attempt to enforce it verbatim would be folly at best, outright disastrous and dangerous at worst.

And then we have folk such as your good self who really should know what their God is supposed to have said in his most important sermon who ignore his words to construct an appology for half their good book because they want to distance themselves , understandably, from the crazy crazy stuff like acceptable slave ownership and killing folk because they , in the original example, gathered sticks for a fire on the sabath.

Let's break this comment down a bit:

First part - And then we have folk such as your good self- certainly you can see where this would be taken as another backhanded compliment, given the apparent tone of the sentence (that of mockery and derision).

Next - who really should know what their God is supposed to have said in his most important sermon- I do not profess to know every word of the bible by memory - to be blunt, my memory isn't good enough to accomplish such a feat. That said...

Last - who ignore his words to construct an appology for half their good book because they want to distance themselves , understandably, from the crazy crazy stuff like acceptable slave ownership and killing folk because they , in the original example, gathered sticks for a fire on the sabath. - What exactly did I ignore? Reference post 114 - the Sermon on the Mount is part of that explanation. Regarding laws for acceptable slave ownership, why wouldn't this be covered? At the time, and for many generations after, it was a normal part of life; it would seem prudent to establish rules for it. That said, those rules no longer apply to modern (civilized) society, as slavery is not acceptable. How many laws are still on the books today that are no longer applicable (here's a good one - in my state of Pennsylvania, if you are driving and come upon a horse and buggy coming the opposite direction, you are supposed to pull over, disassemble your vehicle, and hide it in a bush until it passes by).

Regarding the punishment for picking of sticks on the Sabbath
https://christianity.stackexchange....ll-a-man-for-picking-up-sticks-on-the-sabbath

There has been a lot of discussion over this particular thing, especially given that some were spared death (or, indeed, any punishment - see Mark 2:23-27). It is worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, all examples of punishment for breaking the sabbath were in the Old Testament. There is also debate on whether those particular rules (such as kindling of fire during the Sabbath) even applied after the construction of the tabernacle.

Further reading - https://www.sabbathtruth.com/faq/ar.../arent-sabbath-breakers-supposed-to-be-stoned
https://christianity.stackexchange....ll-a-man-for-picking-up-sticks-on-the-sabbath

So it seems you must accept that the OT is as much a part of your faith as is the NT...will you stop eating shellfish now? Will you now listern to the call to kill your neighbour if he mows his grass on whatever day of rest you interprete to indeed be the day of rest...

This is, of course, a rather silly false dilemma. If Christ died to fulfill the Old Laws, and they are finished, then are they still to be considered binding?
Also, regarding shellfish as a specific (since it is a favorite of those who like to belittle believers, this was addressed)

Mark 7:18-20 New Living Translation (NLT)

18 “Don’t you understand either?” he asked. “Can’t you see that the food you put into your body cannot defile you? 19 Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

20 And then he added, “It is what comes from inside that defiles you.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7&version=NLT
also

9 Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition.10 For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’11 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’12 In this way, you let them disregard their needy parents.13 And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”

Consider this....

Say you are a communist.
You see the virtue in more equitable distribution of resources and motivated by wishing to do good for the community.

You see communism as a good thing.

But it is pointed out to you that certain goods are in short supply because the government forgot to plan and order them and you find that now you cant drive your car because no tires got made in the last five year plan.

Do you sit at home saying what a great system you belong to or do you admit the system has a fundamental flaw.

The failure of a single part of a system does not invalidate the entire system... one could make a similar argument against the "free market" - in such that it works, intentionally and by design, to funnel money upwards, away from the needy and to those that already have plenty.

Now say along with stuffing up the tire supply you find the original manifesto lists rules pertaining to slave ownership, that you can beat your slave so long as he does not die soon thereafter, ...and lists a call to kill folk who work on a certain day, and that if your child is unruley have him stoned, and a general tone that has women treated as property and gross errors about the physical world its creation and destruction (stars can not fall on the ground as set forth in prediction of the end)...

Would you say "oh communism is such a good thing and I want to belong"

You can not be a christian and ignore the OT and if you accept the OT ...as you must...then all you stand for you dont stand for that ar all.

Alex

The same argument, repeatedly stated, does not gain any more credibility simply by being repeated.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+8:10-13&version=NLT

Hebrews 8:10-13 New Living Translation (NLT)
10 But this is the new covenant I will make
with the people of Israel on that day, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds,
and I will write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 And they will not need to teach their neighbors,
nor will they need to teach their relatives,
saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’
For everyone, from the least to the greatest,
will know me already.
12 And I will forgive their wickedness,
and I will never again remember their sins.”

13 When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.

The Old Covenant, the Old Laws of the Old Testament, are fulfilled, finished and done. It is not that they were rendered invalid or moot - they have been completed.